I. Enforcement of judgments and blocking statutes: Lewis v eliades

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 53, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 1025-1030

  Kellman, Elaine ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85023053895     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/53.4.1025     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. [2004] 1 WLR 692.
2. Under Pan n of the Adn-inisoaQon of justice Act 1920 or Pan I of die Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.
3. Although the defendants tried to argue on appeal that die trebling of damages under the RICO Act was an automatic entitlement, this argument was rejected by Nelson J (Lewis v Blades and others [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 850 at 862) who said that die trebling of damages was clearly not automatic An application to treble RICO damages can be withdrawn or die claimant can undertake not to enforce any multiple element.
4. Nelson J also stressed diat die trebling of damages could not be automatic because s 1964 of RICO relates to die recover)’ of damages and diat it is widUn die power of a litigant to waive a right to recover damages or part diereofs Lewis v Blades and others [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 850.
5. The claimant had requested diat die trebled damages awarded for die violation of RICO be entered in a separate judgment to pre-empt problems arising under die Act However. Nelson J stated (All ER at 863) that when RICO damages are trebled, die operation of s 5 of die Act cannot be avoided by diose damages being awarded in a separate judgment.
6. [1911] 2 KB 93.
7. Lewis n 1 at 706.
8. Lewis.
9. Dicey & Morris: The Conflict of Lavs (12th edn) vol 1 at 547 (the 13th edn contains the same text on this point, at 566).
10. [1984] QB 142 at 161.
11. British Airways Board v Lakers Airways Ltd [1985] AC 53 at 89.
12. See generally Dicey, & Morris: The Conflict of Laws (13th edn) vol 1 Rule 35 at 474.
13. (1889) 22 QBD 425.
14. QBD at 427.
15. See S A Consortium General Textiles v Sun & Sand Agencies [1978] QB 279. at 309 per Lord Dennini MR.
16. See L Collins ‘Blocking and Clawback Statutes: The United Kingdom Approach’ in Essays in International Litigation and the Conflict of Laws’ (Oxford clarendon Press 1994) at 348.
17. Lewis n 1 at 706.
18. Dicey & Morris: The Conflict of Laws (13th edn) vol 1 Rule 52 at 565.
19. British Airways v Laker Airways [1984] QB 142
20. British Airways Beard v Lakers Airways Ltd [1985] AC 58.
21. [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 850.
22. [1911] 2 KB 93.
23. Albeit when he was discussing whether die judgment in Lewis v Eliades was one ‘arrived at’ by multiplying a compensatory sum. n 1 at 706.